Mastercard makes a deal with Coinbase to let customers buy NFT’s with Mastercards

[ebprince the computer nerd]

Summary

The credit card/debit card giant, Mastercard, has made a deal with the cryptocurrency buying app, Coinbase, to use their cards to buy NFT’s.

 

Quotes

Quote

Mastercard said Tuesday it inked a deal with Coinbase, the latest in a recent flurry of partnerships between payment and cryptocurrency giants.

As part of the agreement, Coinbase customers will be able to use Mastercard credit and debit cards to make purchases on the crypto exchange's upcoming NFT marketplace. Coinbase unveiled late last year plans to launch the platform for minting and buying nonfungible tokens, which have exploded in popularity over the past 12 months.

 

My thoughts

I hate the entire concept of NFT’s. Just buy real art bruh. Now that people can buy them with credit cards and debit cards, it just makes me angrier. To be honest, props to Mastercard to jump on the bandwagon of the NFT craze.

 

Sources

cnbc

[aisle9]

1 minute ago, ebprince the computer nerd said:

I hate the entire concept of NFT’s. Just buy real art bruh. Now that people can buy them with credit cards and debit cards, it just makes me angrier. To be honest, props to Mastercard to jump on the bandwagon of the NFT craze.

NFTs don't have to be stupid jpgs though. An NFT's purpose is to establish ownership. That's it. Look at the bigger picture, outside of the stupid monkey cartoons, at the possibilities opened up. The real potential of NFTs is in decentralized verification of ownership of real world assets. A well-implemented universal NFT platform could all but eliminate fraud and lots of government bureaucracy. Things like:

• Transferring ownership of a car: instead of standing in line at the DMV and handing over the title hoping the other guy's check clears (or handing over a check and hoping the car's still there when it clears), an immediate blockchain transaction transfers the funds, and after they're transferred, the NFT that contains ownership information for the car transfers to the new owner. Vehicle registration information transfers with it automatically, so there's no going to the DMV. The title's in your name and the car is registered to you, and your new plate (if needed) is in the mail already.
• Home ownership: instead of sitting around a boardroom for three hours to finish the deal, transfer an NFT.
• Original work (art or otherwise): one NFT that establishes ownership of the piece and can be transferred at will, but has stipulations attached to it. Maybe the creator's name is attached to that NFT forever, and every time it changes hands, they get a piece. The NFT can have copyright, trademark or patent data appended to it so there's never any question about who legally owns what. It's a public record on the blockchain, there for all to see, and it can't be forged or fudged the way an ink-and-paper contract can.

I think there's also a strong use case for NFTs to be paired with ZK proofs to create arguably the most privacy-centric finance model ever, but that's for a different, much longer post. NFTs are in the fad phase right now, where people are buying useless ones at inflated prices because it's "cool" or to be able to say they own one. That will die down, and when NFTs crash as hard as all of crypto has over the last 48 hours (RIP Dogelon Mars, gone and soon forgotten), the NFTs that survive on the back end are going to be those that have very real use cases outside of showing off a picture of a stupid ape.

[TempestCatto]

NFT this, crypto that. I just want to go back to how the internet was in 2008. YouTube was good, memes were always top tier, and funny cat videos and .jpgs ruled the world wide web.

[ebprince the computer nerd]

9 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

NFTs don't have to be stupid jpgs though. An NFT's purpose is to establish ownership. That's it. Look at the bigger picture, outside of the stupid monkey cartoons, at the possibilities opened up. The real potential of NFTs is in decentralized verification of ownership of real world assets. A well-implemented universal NFT platform could all but eliminate fraud and lots of government bureaucracy.

I agree with you. NFT’s could be something way better for the entire world and save people so much time. But, people use it for stupid things like funni-lookin monkey.

[Moonzy]

6 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

I just want to go back to how the internet was in 2008. YouTube was good, memes were always top tier, and funny cat videos and .jpgs ruled the world wide web.

kinda off topic but nostalgic glasses is real

human brain changes subtly as the environment changes, what seems to be enjoyable then might not be enjoyable now (mainly due to us being exposed to constant distractions so our brains are used to high amount of dopamine and is thus less sensitive to it)

dont believe me? try using HDD only, and 1Mbit internet
or watch old youtube videos, not your favourite ones but maybe some other older video from your favorite youtuber

 

on-topic: man, the push for NFT and blockchain is real this time, curious to see how it goes

[TetraSky]

Ah yes, just what I wanted! Being able to buy overpriced digital "art" that could be stolen for all I know, with my credit card that has a hard limit on it. And if it's reported as stolen? Do I get a refund? Nope, just can't trade the image anymore because it's blacklisted. Joy. Punish the buyer, not the seller.

 

There's currently 2,716,453 "art items" on Opensea.

https://opensea.io/assets?search[categories][0]=art

 

Out of those, less than half, 777,462 items are under $100k. 
699,033 items are below $5000
316,910 items under $100
150,730 items under $10

 

For digital jpgs that can be copied by anyone, just for the privilege of owning a "certificate" with a web server link to your image that can be deleted off the internet without your consent by whoever owns the server. If it gave you actual ownership, copyright and all, maybe it would be worth it... But as it is, nope.

 

Oh and what does over $100k gets you?
Stupid lazy monkeys "art" that may as well have been made randomly in a character generator. 1000% worth it.

[MultiGamerClub]

29 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

dont believe me? try using HDD only, and 1Mbit internet
or watch old youtube videos, not your favourite ones but maybe some other older video from your favorite youtuber

my old trusty 3200 rpm HDD 1TB still runs good.. even if it makes some weird scratchy noises every now and then..

 

And half its blocks is corrupt, using 900kb internet takes me back.. When simple HTML websites still was 10-20mb

Old youtube videos barely 74p or 144p was so good

 

ontopic: Fuck NFT and crypto.. All tho crypto still somehow looks like the easiest cash grab for so many people.

[aisle9]

46 minutes ago, ebprince the computer nerd said:

I agree with you. NFT’s could be something way better for the entire world and save people so much time. But, people use it for stupid things like funni-lookin monkey.

I equate it to the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. Not sure how familiar you are with that, but basically what happened is that no one knew just what to do with the internet, so lots of dot-com businesses popped up with absolutely no rhyme or reason to what they were doing or why they existed. For no apparent reason, many of them drew hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, both from private investors and public stock trading, despite never having sold anything and having a business plan drawn up on the back of a sheet of toilet paper. At the height of the chaos, people suddenly realized that giving hundreds of millions of dollars to a company that had never sold a thing and had a business plan written on toilet paper was a really stupid idea, so they pulled out their money and those companies started collapsing left and right.

 

The ones that survived--Amazon, eBay, Google, Yahoo, and others that have since folded or been acquired--are the ones that went on to form the backbone of the internet we have today. That's what's going to happen with NFTs. The stupid monkeys are the dot-com bubble phase, when everything's a good idea because no one's tried it yet. Once the monkeys die a spectacular death, what we're left with will be the actual use cases for NFTs in the future.

[poochyena]

56 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

NFT this, crypto that. I just want to go back to how the internet was in 2008. YouTube was good, memes were always top tier, and funny cat videos and .jpgs ruled the world wide web.

Slow downloads, constant video take downs due to copyright (before youtube signed deals with the music companies, basically any video with unlicensed music would get taken down), 10 minute cap on video uploads, CP was rampant on image boards like 4chan, shock sites like lemonparty were common, viruses were much more common (or at least seemed like it.), ads were much worse (virus ads, much more scam ads "you are the millionth visitor", popup ads, etc.), but to top it off and bring it back on topic... people were farming and selling Runescape or WoW gold, which isn't that much different than buying/selling crypto today.

[aisle9]

6 minutes ago, MultiGamerClub said:

ontopic: Fuck NFT and crypto.. All tho crypto still somehow looks like the easiest cash grab for so many people.

There are three types of crypto investors:

• Those who spend lots of time coming up with a detailed plan and then stick to it
• Those who do little to no research and throw way too much money around without any idea what they're doing
• very coin, many doge, such wow

The first group usually does ok. Instead of pursuing a get rich quick scheme, they structure their investments carefully with a focus on Bitcoin and Etherium, lots of stablecoin staking, a few of the safer altcoins and maybe a few shots in the dark. They generally outperform the stock market, but they generally do not become overnight millionaires.

 

The second group is going to go on reddit, see a ton of people bombing r/cryptocurrency with stories about how Shitcoin of the Week is going to the moon, and they'll figure that if so many people are having so much success with it, it must be great. So they're going to put an ungodly amount of money into that coin, not knowing that those 50 people on Reddit were actually just three people--the ones orchestrating a pump and dump scheme. Group two is going to artificially inflate the price of that coin while the "50 experts" on Reddit chant, "HODL" over and over again, then the "50 experts" will sell everything off all at once. They make tons of money, and group two is left with 90% losses and a coin that will never rebound because it was shit to begin with. This kind of thing is why people think crypto is a scam, and if you do your goddamn homework and, most importantly, never take any advice from Reddit, it won't happen to you.

 

The third group, well, they're idiots. I won't lie; I indulge in a little memecoinage myself, with $50 or so into Dogelon Mars, but I do so knowing that the odds of it going "to Mars" are slim to none at best, that I've bought into a currency solely because its "business plan" consists of just getting Elon Musk to mention it on Twitter, and that I will almost certainly never see that money again.

 

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

people were farming and selling Runescape or WoW gold, which isn't that much different than buying/selling crypto today.

The first step in selling gold on WoW is literally mining it. I used to greatly enjoy fucking with gold farmers when I saw them in the game world, then felt really, really bad about it after doing research for a paper I wrote towards the end of college focused on many issues in WoW, with gold farming being a key focus of it. The characters are kept online 24/7 and worked in shifts. If a gold farmer ended their shift without reaching the quota, they didn't get paid, and it was (probably still is) very common for the guy before you to sell off all of the character's gear and milk a little extra gold out right at the end by doing so. That left the next guy with a naked, unarmed, bankrupt toon and a choice to make: waste half an hour killing stuff in hopes of cobbling together some ok-ish armor, or get straight to mining and hope that an asshole like me doesn't show up to slaughter them, dance on their corpse and camp their grave. The conditions they live and work in are really, really sad.

[FakeATF]

1 hour ago, aisle9 said:

NFTs don't have to be stupid jpgs though. An NFT's purpose is to establish ownership. That's it. Look at the bigger picture, outside of the stupid monkey cartoons, at the possibilities opened up. The real potential of NFTs is in decentralized verification of ownership of real world assets. A well-implemented universal NFT platform could all but eliminate fraud and lots of government bureaucracy. Things like:

• Transferring ownership of a car: instead of standing in line at the DMV and handing over the title hoping the other guy's check clears (or handing over a check and hoping the car's still there when it clears), an immediate blockchain transaction transfers the funds, and after they're transferred, the NFT that contains ownership information for the car transfers to the new owner. Vehicle registration information transfers with it automatically, so there's no going to the DMV. The title's in your name and the car is registered to you, and your new plate (if needed) is in the mail already.
• Home ownership: instead of sitting around a boardroom for three hours to finish the deal, transfer an NFT.
• Original work (art or otherwise): one NFT that establishes ownership of the piece and can be transferred at will, but has stipulations attached to it. Maybe the creator's name is attached to that NFT forever, and every time it changes hands, they get a piece. The NFT can have copyright, trademark or patent data appended to it so there's never any question about who legally owns what. It's a public record on the blockchain, there for all to see, and it can't be forged or fudged the way an ink-and-paper contract can.

I think there's also a strong use case for NFTs to be paired with ZK proofs to create arguably the most privacy-centric finance model ever, but that's for a different, much longer post. NFTs are in the fad phase right now, where people are buying useless ones at inflated prices because it's "cool" or to be able to say they own one. That will die down, and when NFTs crash as hard as all of crypto has over the last 48 hours (RIP Dogelon Mars, gone and soon forgotten), the NFTs that survive on the back end are going to be those that have very real use cases outside of showing off a picture of a stupid ape.

Now correct me where I’m wrong, but part of the draw for crypto is the fact that it’s decentralized and not regulated by any government entity, right? This combined with the fact that it’s not backed by anything physical makes various cryptocurrencies a lot less stable than traditional paper currencies. Time and time again I see all these start up cryptos that don’t have any value being advertised and involved in various scams or whatever. Hell, most people are familiar with the story of the guy who ordered a pizza with a ton of bitcoin. Just in the last 5 years the price of Bitcoin has skyrocketed and plummeted multiple times. 

 

I don’t think Crypto is a fad, but I do think that lots of cryptocurrencies are gimmicks or schemes of some kind. There is always going to be a need for some kind of decentralized, private currency (although, in person cash transactions work just as well).

 

Now, what I want to know is why should I, a person who hasn’t ever held any form of crypto before, and who has gotten by just fine all my life without it, put any of my money into crypto and NFTs? IMO there’s no way that crypto will ever, ever replace cash, and, the more common it becomes and more widespread it gets, the more governments are going to do what governments do and stick their noses in and do their best to regulate and neuter cryptocurrencies. Some countries already have and more are looking into it.

 

It’s too early to really tell what role NFTs are going to fill. Mastercard is just doing this to jump on a bandwagon. Just my 2 cents though.

[aisle9]

39 minutes ago, FakeATF said:

Now correct me where I’m wrong, but part of the draw for crypto is the fact that it’s decentralized and not regulated by any government entity, right? This combined with the fact that it’s not backed by anything physical makes various cryptocurrencies a lot less stable than traditional paper currencies. Time and time again I see all these start up cryptos that don’t have any value being advertised and involved in various scams or whatever. Hell, most people are familiar with the story of the guy who ordered a pizza with a ton of bitcoin. Just in the last 5 years the price of Bitcoin has skyrocketed and plummeted multiple times. 

 

I don’t think Crypto is a fad, but I do think that lots of cryptocurrencies are gimmicks or schemes of some kind. There is always going to be a need for some kind of decentralized, private currency (although, in person cash transactions work just as well).

 

Now, what I want to know is why should I, a person who hasn’t ever held any form of crypto before, and who has gotten by just fine all my life without it, put any of my money into crypto and NFTs? IMO there’s no way that crypto will ever, ever replace cash, and, the more common it becomes and more widespread it gets, the more governments are going to do what governments do and stick their noses in and do their best to regulate and neuter cryptocurrencies. Some countries already have and more are looking into it.

 

It’s too early to really tell what role NFTs are going to fill. Mastercard is just doing this to jump on a bandwagon. Just my 2 cents though.

One of the main draws of crypto is that it's decentralized--usually. I think we're seeing that change before our eyes as El Salvador shifts to using Bitcoin as its currency, with other countries behind. That will both centralize crypto and stabilize it to some extent. Crypto is extremely volatile. Even the safest bet in crypto, Bitcoin, is still kind of a bet, and it has valuation swings that would slaughter most fiat currencies. If the dollar's value swung like Bitcoin's does, RIP US economy. Bitcoin's gone from $45k to $35k in two days. It looks like it might have found the bottom, but with interest rate hikes on the horizon, who knows when it recovers, or if there's more down to come?

 

There's a type of crypto called a stablecoin, which is backed theoretically dollar-for-dollar by something like fiat currency, gold, whatever. There's something concrete to tie its value to. I say theoretically because the people running Tether are assholes and have been lying about how "backed" Tether is, to the point where it's inviting all kinds of regulatory scrutiny towards stablecoins. The safest bet in crypto imo, and one I leverage heavily, is buying into stablecoins and staking them for up to 10% interest--free money in your pocket just for letting the exchange use them. I am very, very happy with how that's working out for me, and it's kind of a hedge against losses on the more volatile currencies. But, again, regulation. If an exchange is allowing you to deposit crypto for a set amount of time and earn interest on it...isn't that kind of really close to what banks do?

 

Lots of currencies are piles of steaming shit. Lots of them do so intentionally. There are ways to tell up front if you're paying attention. If 51% of the tokens are given to the creators up front but locked in a wallet that can't be accessed by anyone for five years, that's a pretty good hint that the coin and its backers mean business. If 51% of the tokens are just "burned" outright--placed into a wallet that's locked and no one has any portion of the key to open it--that's a good sign that the creators and backers are serious about building some short-term capital for long-term use. If 51% of the tokens are given to the creators and backers but there's a minimal vesting lockout (or none at all), that's a pretty safe bet that the intent with that currency is to artificially inflate the value, get lots of buy-in, then the creators and backers will pull the rug out by selling off their coins en masse, effectively killing the currency and screwing anyone who invested in it. A rug pull is very much a scam.

 

Cryptocurrency will absolutely replace cash at some point as the main form of currency, although I think there's always going to be a place for paper notes in the US, at least. Look up "CBDC". It's a digital coin--crypto with another name--backed by fiat currency and issued by a government. Like a stablecoin, only issued and controlled by the US government. Jerome Powell, director of the Federal Reserve in the US, is a fan of crypto in general, but is in particular a huge fan of a CBDC as a way to open up commerce and help control inflation. Powell also said earlier this week that even if he does manage to pull off a CBDC in the US, there is still room for traditional crypto like Bitcoin and "well-regulated stablecoins" alongside it. Basically, as long as Jerome Powell is in charge of the Fed, there will be a strong push towards crypto at a federal level, which is very good news for someone like me.

 

I have an idea of why MasterCard might be getting involved in NFTs. All I'll say is that I don't think it's about jumping on a bandwagon at all.

[Spotty]

42 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

There are three types of crypto investors:

And that's the problem I have with cryptocurrency (as it is today). It's an investment, not a currency. An investment that solely relies on the idea that you can later sell it to a bigger sucker who is willing to pay more than what you did to get in on the investment opportunity. I dare say that in game coins in pay2win games are more of a currency than cryptocurrency since you need to buy those coins to purchase the in game items that you want. Nobody invests in jellybeans in candy crush hoping someone will come along and buy it from them later at a higher price. They buy jellybeans (or whatever they're called) because they want to spend it. I doubt many people are buying cryptocurrency with the intention of spending it, though that seems to be the entire reason behind NFTs being created - Giving people something to spend cryptocurrency on.

 

I bought a small amount of cryptocurrency a few years ago just out of curiosity. Since then it's sat in a wallet and I've done nothing with it. I checked the price on it a few months ago and it had gone up probably 500% from when I bought it, thought that was pretty nifty, then proceeded to leave it in the wallet and continue to do nothing with it where it still sits today. What do I do with it? There's nothing that I want to buy that accepts cryptocurrency that wouldn't be easier and simpler to just pay cash for. The only thing that I would realistically do with it is sell it to convert it back in to cash, and that relies on other people being willing to buy it (and for me that's preferably at a higher price than what I originally paid).

 

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Original work (art or otherwise): one NFT that establishes ownership of the piece and can be transferred at will, but has stipulations attached to it. Maybe the creator's name is attached to that NFT forever, and every time it changes hands, they get a piece. The NFT can have copyright, trademark or patent data appended to it so there's never any question about who legally owns what. It's a public record on the blockchain, there for all to see, and it can't be forged or fudged the way an ink-and-paper contract can.

The same problems still persist whether it is artwork or a contract or copyright, but I'm going to focus on artwork since that is primarily what I see NFTs currently being used for...

• Whose responsibility is it to mint artwork to the blockchain? Are you proposing the artist pays a fee to register every single art piece they make just to claim on a ledger somewhere that they were the one who made it? What if the artist is no longer alive? Whose responsibility is it then?
• What if someone else mints the artwork first fraudulently? NFT art is rife with people stealing others art and once something is put on to the blockchain it's impossible to remove. If someone fraudulently mints art that isn't theirs how do you prove that fraudulent NFT is invalid? It's read-only so you can't go back and change it to correct the details. You could mint it again with the correct details but that doesn't remove the fraudulent NFT, you're just hoping that people will recognise the newer NFT as the correct one and disregard the old one, which then goes on to ask the question;
• What happens if someone takes existing NFTs and re-mints them fraudulently claiming to be the artist and falsely claiming that the original NFT is a fraud. How do you then prove who is correct? Both have NFTs with conflicting information, which one do you trust?
• Who decides which blockchain the art is minted to? Do you have one centralised blockchain that controls everything where everything is minted to or can people mint NFTs to whichever blockchain they want and still have it be considered valid?
• What happens if someone else mints it to a different blockchain with different credentials and artist credited? Which one is considered correct? The most popular one at the time? What happens if that blockchain crashes, is forked, or is later replaced by users with a more sophisticated one?
• If you can't attach the original artwork to the blockchain itself (and afaik this isn't possible in most cases due to the size limitations) then you're just pointing a ledger to a URL of an image. What happens if that website hosting the image goes down? Does the artist no longer own the work if imgur or deviantart dies in 5 years time? What happens if you minted an NFT that pointed to say, Tumblr, then later on Tumblr changed their policy to prohibit your type of art and deleted the artwork from their servers? Do you instead host a cryptographic hash of the image file, in which case then is the NFT for the art or is it for the hash? If someone modifies the file by placing a single pixel on to an image and makes the hash completely different is that considered a new piece of artwork that they can claim ownership of? It's not the same hash so it can't be the same artwork.

 

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

The stupid monkeys are the dot-com bubble phase, when everything's a good idea because no one's tried it yet. Once the monkeys die a spectacular death, what we're left with will be the actual use cases for NFTs in the future.

You're assuming the crappy monkey pictures are the dot-com bubble and NFTs are the internet that will live on after. What if the concept of NFTs is the bubble and we're all blinded by the rise to see the fall beyond the crest.

[aisle9]

12 minutes ago, Spotty said:

snip

You raise a lot of good points, but I need to get to bed. I will revisit this tomorrow, because I'm a big believer in the future of NFTs. Not the present. The present state of NFTs is stupid, but the future applications look great.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, aisle9 said:

NFTs don't have to be stupid jpgs though. An NFT's purpose is to establish ownership. That's it. Look at the bigger picture, outside of the stupid monkey cartoons, at the possibilities opened up. The real potential of NFTs is in decentralized verification of ownership of real world assets. A well-implemented universal NFT platform could all but eliminate fraud and lots of government bureaucracy. Things like:

• Transferring ownership of a car: instead of standing in line at the DMV and handing over the title hoping the other guy's check clears (or handing over a check and hoping the car's still there when it clears), an immediate blockchain transaction transfers the funds, and after they're transferred, the NFT that contains ownership information for the car transfers to the new owner. Vehicle registration information transfers with it automatically, so there's no going to the DMV. The title's in your name and the car is registered to you, and your new plate (if needed) is in the mail already.
• Home ownership: instead of sitting around a boardroom for three hours to finish the deal, transfer an NFT.
• Original work (art or otherwise): one NFT that establishes ownership of the piece and can be transferred at will, but has stipulations attached to it. Maybe the creator's name is attached to that NFT forever, and every time it changes hands, they get a piece. The NFT can have copyright, trademark or patent data appended to it so there's never any question about who legally owns what. It's a public record on the blockchain, there for all to see, and it can't be forged or fudged the way an ink-and-paper contract can.

I think there's also a strong use case for NFTs to be paired with ZK proofs to create arguably the most privacy-centric finance model ever, but that's for a different, much longer post. NFTs are in the fad phase right now, where people are buying useless ones at inflated prices because it's "cool" or to be able to say they own one. That will die down, and when NFTs crash as hard as all of crypto has over the last 48 hours (RIP Dogelon Mars, gone and soon forgotten), the NFTs that survive on the back end are going to be those that have very real use cases outside of showing off a picture of a stupid ape.

Tell me this once nfts actually have any legal backing or standings. Having something saying you own something doesn't mean anything if it's not recognized by the government. 

[Spotty]

45 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

You raise a lot of good points, but I need to get to bed. I will revisit this tomorrow, because I'm a big believer in the future of NFTs. Not the present. The present state of NFTs is stupid, but the future applications look great.

Feel free to respond but please don't feel obligated to. I wasn't trying to challenge you or your comments specifically it's just that your comments were a good jumping off point for my own rant about NFTs/crypto.

 

I don't know what the future of NFTs will be, I don't even really understand the present state of them either to be honest. It seems some people have these ideals of all personal information and house deeds and employment contracts being stored in NFTs so that they irrefutably prove who owns something and can't be modified, or even NFTs being used to confirm someone's identity with a unique, publicly visible token being assigned to everyone for everything from replacing passwords to check your emails to casting votes in elections but all that really just sounds horrifying to me. If it can't even solve the problem of people copying drawings of cats off deviantart then how can anyone trust it with their social security number or their mortgage.

 

1 hour ago, aisle9 said:

I have an idea of why MasterCard might be getting involved in NFTs. All I'll say is that I don't think it's about jumping on a bandwagon at all.

I'd actually be interested in knowing your thoughts on that. To me the whole purpose of NFTs was to give something for cryptocurrency to be used for. By making NFTs purchasable directly(?) with traditional currency doesn't it leave cryptocurrency out in the cold? Though, and what I suspect is happening, is it could just be that their partnership involves Coinbase automating the exchange from cash to cryptocurrency during the purchase process, "reducing friction" as they say. With their exchange and infrastructure they could easily back those transactions and potentially to ensure the transaction can always be completed even pay above market value for cryptocurrency, maybe 0.5% above the current market value of the coin, while charging a higher fee to the customer to cover it and profit from the transaction.

 

Major deals like this with Coinbase really do concern me for the 'decentralised' state that cryptocurrency supposedly represents. Is it really decentralised if everyone goes through Coinbase to exchange cryptocurrency or OpenSeas for NFTs?

 

I think I really need to learn more about Blockchain/NFTs/Cryptocurrency especially if dominating companies like Meta, Twitter, Google, Mastercard and so on keep buying in to it. Looks like the NFT world is coming whether you want it or not.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

If people haven't seen it, NFT's are basically links to images, you don't own anything, just the address 
 

 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, aisle9 said:

 

 

The ones that survived--Amazon, eBay, Google, Yahoo, and others that have since folded or been acquired--are the ones that went on to form the backbone of the internet we have today. That's what's going to happen with NFTs. The stupid monkeys are the dot-com bubble phase, when everything's a good idea because no one's tried it yet. Once the monkeys die a spectacular death, what we're left with will be the actual use cases for NFTs in the future.

Does it really surprise anyone that the ones that survived actually had something people wanted (goods for sale, a way to transfer money, information (or in the case of facebook a way to feel that people like you and you are important)).    We will see where NFT's go,  My guess is probably no where, I agree with your dotcom boom comparison as they are not really needed for anything for the average person and collectors already value their "independent evaluations".    What's left will be a niche that is lucky for some.

[BabaGanuche]

5 hours ago, Spotty said:

Major deals like this with Coinbase really do concern me for the 'decentralised' state that cryptocurrency supposedly represents. Is it really decentralised if everyone goes through Coinbase to exchange cryptocurrency or OpenSeas for NFTs?

No and it was never going to be. The only thing that is decentralized is the data storage. Any Blockchain will be to opaque for the commen person to use so some company will make a service and they will end up consolidated into one, or a small number of, dominant players. The exact same thing that played out with web/server hosting.The fact that it not accessable to the common person means it will be centralized. That is even ignoring who controls the Blockchain. Why do you think ehterium has not moved to proof of stake, because for the people who control it would not be better for them. If the is a small group of people that can block that then is it really decentralized?

 

I would argue that the only thing that matters was never decentralized and not designed to be, that is control.

[Heliian]

7 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Cryptocurrency will absolutely replace cash at some point as the main form of currency,

Maybe in a couple hundred years. 

[Doobeedoo]

Ahaha of course.

[FakeATF]

9 hours ago, aisle9 said:

One of the main draws of crypto is that it's decentralized--usually. I think we're seeing that change before our eyes as El Salvador shifts to using Bitcoin as its currency, with other countries behind. That will both centralize crypto and stabilize it to some extent. Crypto is extremely volatile. Even the safest bet in crypto, Bitcoin, is still kind of a bet, and it has valuation swings that would slaughter most fiat currencies. If the dollar's value swung like Bitcoin's does, RIP US economy. Bitcoin's gone from $45k to $35k in two days. It looks like it might have found the bottom, but with interest rate hikes on the horizon, who knows when it recovers, or if there's more down to come?

 

There's a type of crypto called a stablecoin, which is backed theoretically dollar-for-dollar by something like fiat currency, gold, whatever. There's something concrete to tie its value to. I say theoretically because the people running Tether are assholes and have been lying about how "backed" Tether is, to the point where it's inviting all kinds of regulatory scrutiny towards stablecoins.

 

Cryptocurrency will absolutely replace cash at some point as the main form of currency, although I think there's always going to be a place for paper notes in the US, at least. Look up "CBDC". It's a digital coin--crypto with another name--backed by fiat currency and issued by a government. Like a stablecoin, only issued and controlled by the US government. Jerome Powell, director of the Federal Reserve in the US, is a fan of crypto in general, but is in particular a huge fan of a CBDC as a way to open up commerce and help control inflation. Powell also said earlier this week that even if he does manage to pull off a CBDC in the US, there is still room for traditional crypto like Bitcoin and "well-regulated stablecoins" alongside it. Basically, as long as Jerome Powell is in charge of the Fed, there will be a strong push towards crypto at a federal level, which is very good news for someone like me.

(I snipped some parts for brevity)

 

Why would a cryptocurrency ever replace cash? The two systems are fundamentally different and they aren’t interchangeable. You can’t use cash for Crypto transactions (which, as Spotty said, the only real thing that you can buy directly are NFTs). It works the same the other way. I guess in some circumstances you can buy things with crypto, But that relies on both parties having crypto wallets and even bothering with it in the first place. And, you still have to cash out your Crypto for cash. The vast majority of people and transactions are still cash, and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

As you said yourself, Bitcoin has fallen dramatically in two days. As you also said, if the US dollar lost half its value, then there would a worldwide economic collapse, not just the US. This would make the Great Depression look like some mild anxiety (wink). 
 

As for other countries adopting crypto, that’s because their economies have already failed or are failing and a radical solution is what they need to get back on their feet. Whether this works out for them remains to be seen and the ramifications it’ll have also remain to be seen. 
 

The US doesn’t have this problem. The US dollar is pretty damn stable. It’s so stable, it’s the standard unit of measuring economies in. It’s so stable that other countries use it. So why, pray tell, should the strongest economy in the world world give up cash and move to crypto, which is notoriously unstable and volatile. As Spotty also rightly said, crypto is far more suited as an investment than a currency. To make it as stable as the US dollar would, in the process, destroy its main draw of being a decentralized “currency”. The US dollar is so intertwined with our international economy that replacing it would be a nigh impossible task. Even if you did, it would just be a worse solution than what we already have. It’s like reinventing the wheel, if you replaced the rubber tire with a granite one. Why?

[StDragon]

I wonder how many will max out their CC buying the stupid digital tulips and then default? This will end badly.

[BuckGup]

This is awesome. I'm always amazed how ignorant people are to new technology. 90% of crypto posts here are just the same few people crying how it's all a scam and back in their day they had "real" paper money. No one cares or is listening. 

[BabaGanuche]

9 hours ago, aisle9 said:

A well-implemented universal NFT platform could all but eliminate fraud and lots of government bureaucracy. Things like:

• Transferring ownership of a car: instead of standing in line at the DMV and handing over the title hoping the other guy's check clears (or handing over a check and hoping the car's still there when it clears), an immediate blockchain transaction transfers the funds, and after they're transferred, the NFT that contains ownership information for the car transfers to the new owner. Vehicle registration information transfers with it automatically, so there's no going to the DMV. The title's in your name and the car is registered to you, and your new plate (if needed) is in the mail already.
• Home ownership: instead of sitting around a boardroom for three hours to finish the deal, transfer an NFT.
• Original work (art or otherwise): one NFT that establishes ownership of the piece and can be transferred at will, but has stipulations attached to it. Maybe the creator's name is attached to that NFT forever, and every time it changes hands, they get a piece. The NFT can have copyright, trademark or patent data appended to it so there's never any question about who legally owns what. It's a public record on the blockchain, there for all to see, and it can't be forged or fudged the way an ink-and-paper contract can.

It cannot do any of that. They only protect against mam in the middle type fraud. There is even less protection then our current system for endpoint fraud. This would be the biggest problem for anything physical. How do you prove the plysical thing and the entry on the Blockchain are the same thing? For a house as an example is it's address its id on the Blockchain? If that is the case fraud would be trivial just create a new token with a space at the end. If it is truly decentralized who could stop me from doing that? If there is some type of central authority that controls what is put on it why would you need a decentralized ledger?

 

A system like this also does nothing for identity theft. It is hard enough to deal with now. How do you deal with illegitimate transactions on an immutable record? If everything is ran through this it is a massive target for I'd theft and hacking. And if your id is stolen how do you prove you are you? You have zero assets tied to you and there are no other systems of record that you can use to prove yourself.

 

Also a system like that completely abolishes privacy to even have chance of working. For any of that to work you would need some sort of identity that represents you in all of you transactions. This would allow for perfect tracking across the internet. The Blockchain is an anti-privavacy tool by design as everything is public. Something like that would be a boon to union busting employers, repressive governments to have perfect tracking of people's activities.

 

And reason like that is why there is such strong pushback against it. It does nothing to solve fraud, centralizes power over every basic interaction if life for those who control the chain, and eliminates any possibility of annominity and privacy. I do not want a world like that.